Should cars have built-in speed limit?

[Phys251]

I was thinking the same of you.

I make no apologies for calling out beliefs that enable life-threatening behavior. Not so much yours as, despite what you are persuading me of, others' who would significantly increase the risk of dangerous travel.

My stance from the very beginning has been that individuals, when given the opportunity, will more accurately determine the proper and safe speed/manner in which to drive and there is ample evidence to support this proposition. As I mentioned very early in this thread, the frequency of accidents in Montana decreased significantly with higher speeds. Similarly, when traffic signs are removed accidents decrease and traffic flow increases.

Shared Space
No Traffic Signs/Lights
Signs Make Driving Dangerous

Shared space is an interesting concept, I'll give you that. But it would need some testing here in the States for me to take its merits more seriously. And where is your source that Montana's subjective speed limit--which is what it was--significantly decreased the rate of accidents?

How does indifference enable road rage?

Most of the road rage I perceive comes from people who believe themselves to be in a great hurry and cannot get around slower moving traffic which stays in the left lane. Right or wrong, this is a primary cause of road rage. We all know these people: they sit two inches off your bumper, make gestures, swerve around cars, and generally act recklessly.

There is an enormous difference between driving swiftly and driving recklessly. I would much prefer that cars in front of me pull over to the right lane so I may pass (I myself stay in the right lane – which, oddly enough, tends to be less congested – unless I am passing) and continue on my merry way. However, being stuck in the Middle East for a couple of years has given me a renewed sense of patience. So I either wait for a safe opportunity or give a friendly reminder that there are other people on the road by flashing my headlights.

I'm getting the sense that your claim to the right to speed is largely on low-density, rural highways, particularly interstates. Am I right? Because if so, then you and I are not as far apart here as I initially thought. For example, a few of Utah's rural interstates have speed limits of 80 mph. And Texas has a rural tollway that has a top speed of 85 mph. On any rural freeway that can support that with no statistically significant increase in fatality rates from the lower speed limit, I'm open to the change. I'm actually a lot more concerned about what goes on in towns and cities. If you could make this differentiation, it would help a lot. Just--don't claim that being able to drive as fast as you want is a right. Because it's not. Not in the US Constitution, not in any state constitution. It doesn't exist.

I have no issue with people driving any particular speed they choose. What I do have issue with is other people telling me what speed to drive. Stay the hell out of my car and I will stay out of yours. Furthermore, I have no desire to allow an ignorant mob to tell me how to live my life, let alone how quickly I may drive.

But hey, I've been driving for over two decades and have a grand total of two fender-benders (both of which occurred while my vehicle was not moving). So what would I know about road safety?

We probably have good reflexes as well. The thing is, not everyone who decides to drive really fast can handle it. Some can, others cannot. The human brain excels at deceiving its owner that he or she is capable of doing the impossible. That's why we need at least some kind of traffic laws, so that there will not be utter anarchy out there on the road. For example, you do agree that pedestrians should generally have right-of-way over cars, and that drivers should not drive the wrong way, right? I'm not asking if there are specific pedestrian ROW laws or directional flows that need to be changed. I'm asking if you believe that such laws should exist at all.

 

[The Mark]

See, we're arguing two different things. I agree that all of those things I mentioned potentially only harm myself. However, the same goes for speeding. Where we are having a major disconnect is that you are assuming that after I speed I suddenly hit someone. You are irrevocably associating speeding with hitting someone. This is a disingenuous assumption.

I could set myself on fire and then tackle an innocent bystander. I could drink gasoline and punch someone in the face. I could jump out of a plane without a parachute and land on someone. I could punch a grizzly bear in the face and then escape certain death by throwing someone else into the path of the charging bear.

The nanny state thrives on "what if" scenarios. I am arguing that speed by itself does not cause accidents. Period. There certainly becomes a speed at which operating a vehicle becomes dangerous, but this speed cannot be determined prior to the act. As many of us have said repeatedly, there are simply too many variables to derive a single limit.

I'm saying that if you **** up while speeding, you have a much higher chance of harming or killing someone else than if you **** up while punching a bear in the face or jumping out of a plane without a parachute.

 

[Cardinal]

Federal? No.

State? Only if the people vote for it.

Right, because a state passing a law rather than the Federal government makes a bad idea good.

 

[DA60]

Right, because a state passing a law rather than the Federal government makes a bad idea good.

No, because I believe this should be up to individual states...not the federal government.

 

[Cardinal]

No, because I believe this should be up to individual states...not the federal government.

Would it be acceptable to be hit by an iron bullet instead of a steel bullet? Or for the mother to gamble away the kid's college savings instead of the father? A bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of whether the state or the Fed has it.

"Oh my god, the government just passed a law that we're all going to be turned into mulch and used as fertilizer! This is horrible!"
"No guys, relax, it's cool...it's a state law."

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, because I believe this should be up to individual states...not the federal government.

That is not practical. While there are CA only emission standards those apply only to CA registered cars. Can you imagine any state (even CA) mandating that these extremely costly modifications be made to all vehicles and roadways?

 

[DA60]

That is not practical. While there are CA only emission standards those apply only to CA registered cars. Can you imagine any state (even CA) mandating that these extremely costly modifications be made to all vehicles and roadways?

Yup, it would.

I retract my statement...I have a feeling I was thinking of seat belt laws when I typed my original post.

 

[Soupnazi630]

OK, fellas, here is the issue: after having a speed limit of, let's say 80 mph, why are cars made to drive up to 140-200 mph? Obviously it would be illegal to drive beyond the speed limit.

Question: Do you think cars should have built-in electronic speed limit, i.e. the computer limits the speed of the car to what is legal to drive?

No doubt this could save thousands of lives annually and will prevent criminals from escaping the police (if we presume police cars will not have that electronic speed limit).
What do you think?

First of all such criminals in high speed pursuits never really escape the police even if the police let them go to avoid the dangers of such a pursuit they can easily be intercepted and picked up later.

I understand the point about speed limits in cars and it seems to make sense but then it ignores the consequences.

There are in fact legitimate times where the speed limit needs to be violated in emergencies. The status quo is fine

 

[trollarc]

Which means that if I need to speed to get away from someone chasing me in an old car, I'm outta luck.

Or if someone needs to speed someone else to the hospital in an emergency.

Autonomous cars are supposed to be coming out (Nissan has made statements towards 2020ish) these could be made to travel the speed limit usually. They could put an emergency mode in to get people to a hospital, police, or fire station as quickly as they can. If you frequently run from the police, you would probably be better off in an older car.

 

[TNAR]

I make no apologies for calling out beliefs that enable life-threatening behavior.

Perhaps you should reconsider. A person going 56 in a 55 zone is speeding. Most law enforcement and traffic engineers would admit that in most situations this speed is just as safe as traveling 55. The limit is arbitrary and attempts to create a precise answer to a fluid question. Obviously I will never convince you of your errors, but perhaps I can plant a seed of doubt by simply suggesting that speeding (e.g. 55.1 mph in a 55 mph zone) does not suddenly create “life-threatening behavior.”

Shared space is an interesting concept, I'll give you that. But it would need some testing here in the States for me to take its merits more seriously. And where is your source that Montana's subjective speed limit--which is what it was--significantly decreased the rate of accidents?

There are many different approaches to this idea, but Shared Space seems to be one of the most widely studied. If you check out their website you will find that it has been applied in a limited fashion in three U.S. states.

You and I discussed the Montana issue to quite some degree in this thread. Here is a report about the so-called 85th percentile as has been discussed a few times in this thread and also mentions the Montana paradox.

I'm getting the sense that your claim to the right to speed is largely on low-density, rural highways, particularly interstates. Am I right?

Not at all. In dense urban areas I typically find that the traffic conditions and presence of pedestrians cause me to drive at or below the limit. My suggestion is not that everyone should be able to speed recklessly to and fro to their heart’s delight. Rather, I am trying to convey the idea that when the responsibility for safety is placed on the actor – as opposed to a government engineer – they will very quickly determine the proper speed for the conditions. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule. Under the current system of direct punishment there are still thousands of cases of people driving insanely and causing wrecks. But this behavior cannot be legislated away; no behavior can.

Just--don't claim that being able to drive as fast as you want is a right. Because it's not. Not in the US Constitution, not in any state constitution. It doesn't exist.

The funny thing about the Constitution is that it bequeaths no rights to the citizens. It seems like a very minor thing to many people, but I am convinced that this is a major reason behind the massively intrusive government we have today. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what rights the people have or do not have. Instead, it states what rights the government has. For example, the First Amendment does not give people freedom of speech or religion, rather it prohibits the government from restricting the pre-existing right. The Declaration of Independence makes it very clear that governments derive their powers from the people, not vice versa.

The thing is, not everyone who decides to drive really fast can handle it. Some can, others cannot.

We are in absolute agreement. Humans excel at overestimating their abilities, especially in their younger years. But what scientists have discovered is that humans want to do what is in their best interest. They most certainly could be wrong, but as a rule they try to do what they view to be the most desirable means for a particular end. When the responsibility for making decisions is removed from a person, they begin to act irrationally.

Consider alcohol. Underage consumption of alcohol is a pretty big issue in America. For years there has been a concerted effort to protect children from the evils associated with alcohol and they have, in general, been a complete failure. Alcohol consumption by minors is driven underground and is given a “cool” aspect because of its illegality. Contrast American teenagers with foreign teenagers where drinking is legal and not viewed as something exciting to do to express one’s rebellion. Do these areas still have young people abusing alcohol? Of course they do. But no place on earth is devoid of grown adults who abuse alcohol.

My point is simply that removing the responsibility of a person’s actions from that individual and placing it on a government regulation (i.e. legal age, traffic sign, etc.) creates problems. If a driver is no longer worried about looking for cops hiding behind signs or constantly checking his speedometer, he will have more time to look for potential hazards on the road and judge a proper speed based on these fluid external factors.

 

[JumpinJack]

Autonomous cars are supposed to be coming out (Nissan has made statements towards 2020ish) these could be made to travel the speed limit usually. They could put an emergency mode in to get people to a hospital, police, or fire station as quickly as they can. If you frequently run from the police, you would probably be better off in an older car.

Maybe yu run from the police. But I was referring to running from a carjacker, criminal, rapist, or other bad guy. You had better be able to go faster than he can. If he's in an old clunker that goes 120 mph and you're in a new car that caps out at 65, you're a sitting duck. Criminals will have a field day.

The govt is involved in so many aspects of our lives currently...including those stupid headrests that don't do a damn thing - that I don't think adding one more silly item to the list is helpful. If YOU don't want to speed, don't. It's that simple.

 

[Phys251]

Aha. Indeed we are not that far apart on this issue, though differences definitely exist. Many jurisdictions won't even bat an eyelash at drivers going less than 5 over. Cops typically wait until the super-speeders arrive, which, unfortunately, they inevitably do.

It's important to note who is at risk for dying in car crashes. As of 2009, car crashes are the number one cause of death for people aged 8-24, and the #2 cause for those aged 4-7 and 25-34. Just as in every other such study I have ever read, a clear majority of drivers at fault in fatal wrecks are male.

Here is a recent study from the state of Florida. It is vague in terms of what exactly caused many of the fatal wrecks--they do mention speed, but generally in conjunction with alcohol use. Note that if DUIs would plummet and seat belt use would become commonplace, those two changes alone would significantly cut the rate of fatal wrecks.

 

[trollarc]

What I find immature is the pompous righteousness of complete strangers telling me they know how I should live my own life. Immaturity is the belief that a rule will somehow magically make everything uncomfortable disappear. Nullification is the way for liberty-loving people to throw the chains of servitude from their ankles emplaced by pretentious do-gooders.

Driving on public roads isn't a right. If you don't comply with the customs of the road, people will die.
So in this case, a mutual understanding of what is the correct way to do things, and what is unreasonable must be determined for the greater good of each member of society.
Liberty=/=absolute chaos and extreme risk.

 

[joko104]

Driving on public roads isn't a right. If you don't comply with the customs of the road, people will die.
So in this case, a mutual understanding of what is the correct way to do things, and what is unreasonable must be determined for the greater good of each member of society.
Liberty=/=absolute chaos and extreme risk.

Driving on a public road is a right in my opinion. "The greater good" claim is a disavowing of individual human and civil rights.

 

[trollarc]

Driving on a public road is a right in my opinion. "The greater good" claim is a disavowing of individual human and civil rights.

Interesting. When you literally own the road your opinion is law. On public roads public law is law.

 

[Master PO]

OK, fellas, here is the issue: after having a speed limit of, let's say 80 mph, why are cars made to drive up to 140-200 mph? Obviously it would be illegal to drive beyond the speed limit.

Question: Do you think cars should have built-in electronic speed limit, i.e. the computer limits the speed of the car to what is legal to drive?

No doubt this could save thousands of lives annually and will prevent criminals from escaping the police (if we presume police cars will not have that electronic speed limit).
What do you think?

if motor vehicles can no longer speed, ....what will happen to cities and states, who can no longer collect revenue on fines for that offense?

then governments will find other ways to extract the money from the people.

more taxes, permits, higher fines for other offenses......governments are going to get their money....one way or another.

 

[TNAR]

It is vague in terms of what exactly caused many of the fatal wrecks--they do mention speed, but generally in conjunction with alcohol use. Note that if DUIs would plummet and seat belt use would become commonplace, those two changes alone would significantly cut the rate of fatal wrecks.

Here is my anecdotal story explaining my position:

I went to Korea very early in my military career where it happened to be legal to drink prior to turning 21. Growing up in a rural area with not much to do, I had been drinking for many years anyway, but suddenly becoming "legal" was a pretty big deal so I abused it. (That said, from my perspective pretty much everyone over there abused alcohol.) When I got back to the States, I was still not 21 and it was very odd for me not to be able to go into a bar and have a drink. The law did not stop me, it simply drove it into hiding. When I finally turned 21 it was no longer a big deal and my consumption quickly turned from excessive to recreational.

My point is that black markets exist solely because there is a demand for a good which has been deemed illegal by the government. The law does absolutely nothing to address the demand and simply forces it into extra-legal arenas. In actuality, illegality creates problems where none would have otherwise existed. For example, those involved in the drug trade cannot enforce contracts peacefully through courts or arbitration because of the illegal nature. So when contract disputes arise they must be solved through the use of violence.

Traffic law is not quite as simple to recognize in this aspect, but the concept equally applies. Many people have died getting hit in crosswalks and at intersections because the law gave them the right-of-way. This removed the responsibility of ensuring safety from the individuals and they assumed the area was safe. These laws give people a false sense of security. People drive excessively with or without a law telling them not to do it. Without a law in place, however, every driver must treat driving as a fluid situation in which every other vehicle and pedestrian is a potential hazard rather than assume the other drivers will yield to them.

 

[joko104]

Exactly, because nobody should tell me to turn on my lights at night, stop for trains, or do anything else that might reduce the risk of a collision. Give me a break.

Have you ever tried to list out all your fears?

 

[joko104]

Interesting. When you literally own the road your opinion is law. On public roads public law is law.

No, a slogan isn't a law.

 

[Phys251]

Have you ever tried to list out all your fears?

Only to someone that has earned my complete trust. I can count the number of people that satisfy that criterion on one hand.

 

[Phys251]

Here is my anecdotal story explaining my position:

I went to Korea very early in my military career where it happened to be legal to drink prior to turning 21. Growing up in a rural area with not much to do, I had been drinking for many years anyway, but suddenly becoming "legal" was a pretty big deal so I abused it. (That said, from my perspective pretty much everyone over there abused alcohol.) When I got back to the States, I was still not 21 and it was very odd for me not to be able to go into a bar and have a drink. The law did not stop me, it simply drove it into hiding. When I finally turned 21 it was no longer a big deal and my consumption quickly turned from excessive to recreational.

My point is that black markets exist solely because there is a demand for a good which has been deemed illegal by the government. The law does absolutely nothing to address the demand and simply forces it into extra-legal arenas. In actuality, illegality creates problems where none would have otherwise existed. For example, those involved in the drug trade cannot enforce contracts peacefully through courts or arbitration because of the illegal nature. So when contract disputes arise they must be solved through the use of violence.

Interesting story, but the connection to traffic laws seems shaky. It is my understanding that a more specific statement of the phrase "speed kills" would not be excessive V (velocity), but delta-V (difference in velocities). That's why a car might sideswipe another while they are both going 60 mph, yet they barely receive any damage. But lots of delta-V is GOING to happen when people choose to set their own speeds as opposed to being respectful of drivers around them.

Traffic law is not quite as simple to recognize in this aspect, but the concept equally applies. Many people have died getting hit in crosswalks and at intersections because the law gave them the right-of-way. This removed the responsibility of ensuring safety from the individuals and they assumed the area was safe. These laws give people a false sense of security. People drive excessively with or without a law telling them not to do it. Without a law in place, however, every driver must treat driving as a fluid situation in which every other vehicle and pedestrian is a potential hazard rather than assume the other drivers will yield to them.

I call BS here. I believe that if every driver followed every traffic law on the books 100% of the time, the number of collisions and road fatalities would plummet. Doing this, or at least trying to, is THE thing that kept me safe on the road while I was a teenage driver. While some of my peers were taking incredibly stupid risks, I drove like grandpa. Yeah I very occasionally pissed off a self-entitled driver, but had they done anything to me or my car, the law would absolutely have been on my side.

As a concession, I do favor laws that make the speed limit and the minimum speed one and the same in the left lane on freeways and rural, 4-lane highways. As I've suggested before, I have much less of a problem with other people driving 15 over on those highways than I do on surface streets.

 

[TNAR]

It is my understanding that a more specific statement of the phrase "speed kills" would not be excessive V (velocity), but delta-V (difference in velocities).

Absolutely in agreement here. However, people tend to match the speed of the other vehicles around them. Have you every driven any of the freeways in the LA basin? The speed limit is not even considered unless you're in a construction zone or the cops have to meet their quota. When people match their speed to those around them in the appropriate lanes then this is rarely a problem. It is only a problem when someone drives much slower than other traffic in the left lane(s).

I call BS here. I believe that if every driver followed every traffic law on the books 100% of the time, the number of collisions and road fatalities would plummet.

If everyone obeyed the fact that murder is illegal the number of murders would plummet as well. I have been called out for proposing a utopian world on many an occasion, but you are absolutely guilty of it here!

 

[Phys251]

Absolutely in agreement here. However, people tend to match the speed of the other vehicles around them. Have you every driven any of the freeways in the LA basin? The speed limit is not even considered unless you're in a construction zone or the cops have to meet their quota. When people match their speed to those around them in the appropriate lanes then this is rarely a problem. It is only a problem when someone drives much slower than other traffic in the left lane(s).

Let's talk about the surface streets for a minute, since I think we're mostly in agreement with how to deal with freeway speeds. What's the answer to people driving as fast as they feel like through residential neighborhoods? Or urban streets?

If everyone obeyed the fact that murder is illegal the number of murders would plummet as well. I have been called out for proposing a utopian world on many an occasion, but you are absolutely guilty of it here!

Then would you suggest legalizing murder under certain circumstances?

 

[joko104]

I have driven over 100 mph many times and my wife does so routinely. Yet neither of us have been in any accident while speeding and she's never been in an accident at all. How is that possible?!

 

[joko104]

Let's talk about the surface streets for a minute, since I think we're mostly in agreement with how to deal with freeway speeds. What's the answer to people driving as fast as they feel like through residential neighborhoods? Or urban streets?

What does that have to do with speed controllers on cars?